Subjects

Thursday, May 16, 2013

SB2404: A Simple Simile(?)

Simple Similes & SB2404

Yesterday on
the Mag Mile, in broad daylight and heavy foot traffic, an elderly lady was
robbed by a group of young thugs who demanded her money and her jewelry. Perhaps you’ve read or heard about it. She estimated her loss in jewelry at
approximately $100,000. The media is
aghast at either the inattentiveness or callousness of the pedestrians who did
not come to her aid (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/magnificent-mile-mugging-_n_3285688.html?utm_hp_ref=chicago). Even if apocryphal, it's a great simile.

Perhaps if
she had shouted and screamed they’d have taken notice?

On the other
hand, if she were more like the coalition We
Are One, she’d have wisely responded by saying, “Can we negotiate?”

Maybe then
the thugs would have taken only some of the jewelry. Or she could have explained what it was worth
to her and they could let her keep, say, half of it. Doing that she could have gotten something out
of the deal. They could have gotten something too.

Lately, my
friends and fellows have been trying to comprehend the “new alliance” between
the coalition of unions (We Are One) and the legislators in the Senate who have
constructed a bill that increases costs for actives and reduces pensions for
actives and current retirees. The bill
is SB2404.

“There is a
new reality.” According to IEA lobbyist Will Lovitt at the IEA Retired
Convention. “What I am hearing in
Springfield is not like anything I have heard since I began working
there.” This warning of a General
Assembly ready to redouble efforts to reign in costs for the debts they’ve
accumulated did not fall on deaf ears or mute voices. The argument regarding the negotiated” bill SB2404
has been heated.

“Get a grip,
people,” emailed one retiree, “it’s negotiations.” In other words, you have to give to move
on. Members of the General Assembly who
crafted or backed SB2404 point to collaboration as momentous in their
praise. Senator Toi Hutchinson wrote, “Senate Bill 2404, a product of
negotiations between public employees unions and the Senate President, is not
only a cost savings measure, but is also the most fair approach presented thus
far to current and future retirees.

I commend
the union coalition for having made such a great effort to ensure the stability
of the pension systems for future generations.” Past and current leaders of
the IEA have pressed the retired membership that SB2404 is the only bill worth
supporting. “SB2404, the Cullerton-Coalition
bill, is a choice model proposal that asks active and retired members to accept
a benefit change in exchange for something of value. That concept is what gives the bill the
greatest chance of being constitutional.”

The IRTA
disagrees, and they are drawing a line in the sand – much to the consternation
of SB2404 backers. Some even suggest
that such a challenge might threaten the “new alliance,” and provide for the
passage of the pension killer bill, SB1.

Lots of
people draw lines in the sand, even very important people. Just last month, President Obama found
himself in a sticky situation after earlier drawing a line regarding the use of
chemical weapons in Syria, only to find it necessary to vacillate after their
probable use as reported by victims and other media. He needed to check on the veracity of such
claims. Some lines are indeed necessarily
more shallow than others.

On the other
hand, it doesn’t take a great deal of reading to realize the words, “Membership
in any pension or retirement system of the State, any unit of local government
or school district, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, shall be an enforceable
contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or
impaired” seem pretty
clear. Reading Eric Madiar’s careful exegesis
“Is Welching on Public Pension Promises and Option for Illinois,” one finds
that the history and documentation of the 1970 Constitutional Convention chronicles
a seriously deep line drawn purposely by Representatives Henry Green and Helen
Kinney.

In fact, the
words are so clear and so self-evident that the city of Joliet was informed
last week by the Illinois Appellate Court, who side-swiped more than
side-stepped the question, whether changes in retirees’ health care can occur
post retirement. “The appellate court
basically ordered that the case be reconsidered based on contractual
issues. It also indicated that a future
decision should comply with a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling that health
benefits for retirees should remain as is unless there is clear evidence that
benefits can be subject to changes” ((http://heraldnews.suntimes.com/news/20011796-418/no-constitutional-ruling-in-joliet-retirees-case.html).

So, one ponders,
who is offering changes in healthcare in SB2404? Will these changes become part of a past
history providing precedent for future considerations?

Will the
General Assembly come back for more after this “new alliance,” this “new
reality,” and this potential passage of SB2404? My experience says indeed they
will.

Let’s go
back to the Mag Mile.

Thug: Okay lady, we’ll take just half of the loot. Give me your left earring and just one of the
rings.

Lady: Thanks, you guys. Thanks, so much. Here you go.

Thug: Okay, now give me all of it.

Maybe we
should shout and scream after all? Maybe
that scream should be: “Membership
in any pension or retirement system of the State, any unit of local government
or school district, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, shall be an enforceable
contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or
impaired.”

I am on the side of IRTA. When SB 2404 was first introduced around last October, it did not include retirees. NOW...the new SB 2404 INCLUDES the retirees, therefore unconstitutional. If the Senate and House take parts from both bills and put them into one bill for passage, you can count on the bill being unconstitutional. Gov. Quinn will sign it and it will go to court. What will happen in court is....there will be several things in it that will be unconstitutional, BUT they will take one of them out....which means, they'll "interpret" one of the unconstitutional parts TO NOW BE constitutional. Thus, the court system will circumvent the guarantees to the constitution for us! Then....they will keep chip, chip and chipping away at our pensions over the next ? years.

I'm in an interesting position. My husband and I have been retired three years; he has started receiving COLA, but I have not. With either bill, COLA will be reduced/postponed/abolished. I'm 6 years away from getting Medicare. With SB2404, health benefits will be "guaranteed" - but for how long? If I lose that benefit, I and many others will be scrambling for health care. My state senator doesn't particularly like SB2404 because of the pain it causes retirees, but my state representative is all for SB1. I'm scared about a court battle, especially after reading Anonymous's comments. IRTA and IEA (and I belong to both) don't agree and everyone wants me to call my legislators. Frankly, I don't know what to believe any more...but I'm losing faith in it all.

If we must except what might be passed then all the political people have to get the same things that they want us to accept.. a reduced and staggered COLA, choosing between money and health care, etc.

they prevented these people from paying into soc sec and medicare with the promise of an equivalent package--now they are changing the contract they made with these people--people why don't we all sue the state for the money we had to pay into this stupid system and then we can take care of ourselves--oh, that would reduce the paychecks of the fools in the capitol, oh, never mind.

The "one size fits all" pension bills are unconstitutional and a breech of contract. Each retirement system is slightly different. SURS employees already pay an additional 1 percent of their pay specifically to fund the cost of living adjustments. They also pay an extra half percent plus the employer pays a half percent towards retiree health care. The shortfall in funding is caused by the GA and Governors misappropriation of the pension funds-NO OTHER REASON!

About Me

I am a retiree, political activist, social advocate and community volunteer. I taught at Lyons Township High School in LaGrange for 34 years in the Language Arts classroom and worked as an administrator for several years. My current avocations include various community outreach and assistance programs. Having benefitted from employment in a collegial, reflective teaching environment that encouraged dedication and professionalism, I continue to seek the promotion of education at all levels as a long-term effort combining talent, perseverance, commitment, and constant professional growth - not a blind adherence to a business model of measured production.

Copyrights & Fair Use

This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of issues vital to a democracy. I believe this constitutes a “fair use” of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law.